A Defense of the Principles of Love, Part 2 · Exception 26 – Exception 27
EXCEPT. XXVI. Answered. p. 16. IOf the judgement of the Unive…sal Church. intreat the Reader to peruse my words which you except against so angrily, and I am assured, he will find them useful to him, in the great Question Who shall be Iudge? And to help him out of his perplexities. 1. It is a notorious untruth that you say, [It is altogether a new way of deciding Controversies, to affirm Dictator like, in all points of belief or practice which are of necessity to Salvation, you must ever keep company with the Universal Church.] Be it right or wrong, who knoweth not that knoweth what was held of old, that it is the way that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Hierome, Augustine, Optatus, and abundance more have largely written for: And which Vincentius Lirinensis wrote his book for, (Quod semper, ubi que , & ab omnibus, &c.)
2. Note, Reader, that he leaveth out, that I said here [no man must be Iudge, no, not the universal Church, but only that they are our associates, and that here every Christian maketh the Articles of his Faith his own, and upon no mans authority, &c.] But I maintain that it is no Article of absolute necessity to Salvation, that hath been unknown to the Universal Church till now; for then it were no Church.
But, saith our brother, who shall tell us what is the Universal Church? And where shall we find it? Answ. Are these Questions now to be answered by me? Did you never before hear it done by others? The Universal Church, is the Universality of Christians: It is to be found militant, on this habitable earth. Did you not know this?
But you ask, [How comes the Scripture not to be mentioned?] Answ. Because it was not seasonable, or pertinent. I was not defining the Church; If I had, it was definable without the naming of the Scripture, at least before the Scripture was written: And whence think you did I mean men should make the doctrine of Faith their own, past controversie, but by the Scripture? Good brother, till you have written more books for the authority of Scriptures than I have done, or preach'd more for it, own not such disingenuous intimations.
2. You say that, [what he addes is Of the judgement of Learned men in difficult speculations.much more conceited and singular; In matters of high and difficult speculation, the judgement of one man of extraordinary understanding and clearness, is to be preferred before both the Rulers and the Major Vote.] Answ. It is another Untruth, that this is singular. My very words are almost verbatim in Mr. Pemble Vind. Grat. elsewhere cited. Why do the Scotists, so far follow Scotus, and the Nominals, Ockbam, and the Dominicans, Aquinas, &c. if this were a singular opinion? Do not all the Peripateticks say the same of Aristotle in Philosophy? And the Atomists of Epicurus, Democritus and Lucretius; and the Cartesians of their Master? Doth not Dr. Twisse say the like of Bradwardine and of Piscator? And do not many besides Rutherford think the same of him? Do not the Ramists say so of Ramus? Do not the Protestants say so of Calvin, as to all that went before him? Nay, is it not almost the common opinion of all Learned men? And a thing beyond dispute? Did ever any man put such points of high speculation to the Major vote? Alas, brother, that you should trouble men thus, by printing your confidence against unquestionable Truths!
In the next place you suppose, [Mr. Baxter hopes, as Haman did in the like case, that 20 Untruth.he shall be the man, or else he would not have advised us to prefer the judgement of any one man whatsoever.] Answ. Here are three more Untruths, 1. That I hope to be the man. 2. That Hamans was the like case. 3. That else I would not have advised, &c. But I let them go for one; till you have proved what you say, and know my heart better than I my self. In the mean time I give you an instance in which I assure you I hope not to be the man: Will you suppose at the next meeting of Ministers, that there are sixteen that understand not the Hebrew Tongue, and three that have but a little smattering in it, and one that is a Bithner, … Phagius, a Buxtorfe, a Tremelius, or (to please you where it is possible) an Aynswer…h: If the Controversie be, how such a T… of the Old Testament is to be interpreted, will you put it to the Vote? Or will you not prefer that one mans judgement before all the rest? And do not those Ministers do thus, that trust to the Translators, and understand not the Originals themselves.
But you adde, [He knows we believe that the Scripture is both perfect and plain.] Answ. Yes, plain to them that are fitted to understand it. Our labour is not to alter the Scripture, but to alter mens understandings. Do you know as much as Twisse or Bradwardine for all the Scriptures are plain? Or do you think that I know as much as you? Let the Reader judge. Do you not think that your writing and preaching is needful, for all that the Scripture is plain and perfect: And do you not know more than all your hearers? If all the Ministers silenced and unsilenced be not needless to teach the people, why may not some one man excell you and me, whose teaching may be needful to us, and yet the Scripture not be disgraced? Or why will you not write us an Infallible Commentary, and save Mr. Poole his labour of abbreviating the Criticks, if the plainness of the Scripture serve your turn without the teaching of any one that excelleth you? Shall all our people, and all the differing, contending parties in England say, The Scriptures are perfect and plain, and therefore we need not the Translation of them, the Interpretations, the decisions or helps of any but our selves? Or of any wiser than the most?
As for your Anathema, I thank you for your admonition.
EXCEPT. XXVII. Answered. You say He seems to us very much to disparage the reputation of honesty, when he scruples not to Whether honest people be not apt to stray after one anothers example.affirm [It oft falleth out that honest people are like straying sheep, if one leap over the hedge, the rest will crowd and strive to follow him.] This we think is enough to make people afraid of being honest, if indeed when they are so, they are so apt to go astray.
Answ. 1. Do I need to cite you an hundred Texts in which this sinning, straying inclination is charged upon honest men? When Paul saith of himself, what he doth, Rom. 7. and David of himself, Psal. 119. 176. And he that saith that he hath no sin deceiveth himself, and the truth is not in him, And there is not a just man that doth good and sinneth not. Did not Pauls carnal Corinthians, and Lgeal Galatians go astray one after another? Are you sure that they that followed their Leaders into all those sects which Epiphanius and others mention, were all dishonest? And all they that followed Swinkfeldius, and Behmen, and Sti…felius, and Muntzer, and such others? And all they that have followed Dr. Crispe, or Arminius, or the Leading Anabaptists, or Seekers, of these ages? Yea, or all they that did and said those contrary and confounding things in our late troubles, which must not to you be mentioned? Are you sure that none of all these were honest? Or are you sure that none of them went astray? Even when they contradicted, yea, killed one another? Or are you sure that some seduced not the rest? At least you should not have forgotten in the doing of it, that you were then writing an Antidote to keep honest people from being infected by my book for Love and Unity; And if honest people are in no such danger, why laboured you in vain? Your intenseness upon what your passion sets you on, hindereth your memory of what you cannot choose but know.
2. But, O brother, how injurious a Course is this that you take? How contrary to all the course of Scripture, and the duty of a Minister, to lay the reputation of honesty it self so much on such sinners as most honest men are, that honesty it self must be thus published by you to seem dangerous and hurtful, unless all honest people be vindicated from such errors? As if we must grant that, if men can but prove this straying disposition in many honest persons, they must be afraid to be honest? And do you not undoubtedly hereby give up all honesty to be avoided? Will any man but you, that is sober, and awake, deny the antecedent, that seeth our several parties, and knoweth what we have done? This is not the way to vindicate honesty. Health and Life are not to be avoided because most men have diseases and infirmities. Why did you not answer the proofs I gave you of the Lutherans, Armenians, Greeks, and other Kingdoms that run together in an error? Are the falls of Gods servants recited in Scripture, a reason to teach men to flye from honesty or religion?